Public Transport in SEQ
Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East
Queensland public transport infrastructure
January 2012
A research report by GHD
for the
Council of Mayors (SEQ)
GHD was commissioned by the Council
of Mayors (SEQ) to provide advice on
innovative and value for money options for
investment in the public transport network
in South East Queensland (SEQ).
A key challenge for the investment
program for public transport infrastructure
in SEQ is how to meet the needs of
a growing region within the nancially
constrained scal environment now faced
by all levels of government.
A key concern is whether the funds exist
to proceed with the State Government’s
iconic $7700M Cross River Rail project.
Some SEQ Councils are concerned
that funding the project may delay other
important projects in the region, while
failure to deliver the project may stymie
growth of the regional rail network.
For these reasons, GHD was asked to
consider whether the objectives of the
Cross River Rail project can be met in a
more cost effective way.
The State Government has invested an
average of about $1500M annually over
the last four years on public transport
infrastructure. GHD was asked to consider
what could be delivered if expenditure was
maintained at around that level over the
next decade, having regard to the priorities
in the Queensland Infrastructure Plan and
the priorities identi ed by the Council of
Mayors (SEQ).
This report not only develops a list of
priority projects, but proposes a new
vision for SEQ Public Transport that puts
the commuter at the heart of the system.
It is being released to encourage public
discussion about options for investing in
public transport infrastructure across SEQ.
The report does not represent an endorsed
policy position of the Council of Mayors
(SEQ), which will not consider the report
and public reactions to it until after the
2012 local government elections. The
Council of Mayors (SEQ) will consider
all options in developing its future input
into the next iteration of the Queensland
Infrastructure Plan.
The Council of Mayors (SEQ) looks forward
to further developing a constructive
working partnership with the Queensland
Government on planning for the
infrastructure that SEQ will need over the
next decade to maximise the liveability,
sustainability and productivity of this great
region.
Contents
06
40
Executive Summary
On the Main Stage
15
40 page
What Needs to be
Delivered in the Next Five
to Ten Years?
Financing the Plan
42 page
Introduction
16
Introducing Competitive
Tension into the System
State of Play
Current Public Transport
Proposals
Major Problems
16 page
The Opporunity
20 page
Affordable, Timely and
Innovative Solutions
The Cleveland Solution
22 page
24 page
Projects Beyond 2022
39 page
19 page
46
Conclusion
45 page
Photo: Brisbane Marketing
In many ways,
South East Queensland is at the cross roads as policy makers face the
challenge of providing the public transport facilities needed to underpin
the region’s population growth, productivity and maintain our lifestyle and
standard of living in a contracting scal environment.
6
The current scal and
planning environments are
uncertain
Uncertain Planning
Environment
•
The current planning
environment is uncertain:
• The scal positions of the
State and Commonwealth
Governments are
extremely tight – the ability
of the public sector to make
large investments in capital
projects has been greatly
•
diminished.
• The private sector has
little appetite to take on
patronage risk for
transport projects – the
private sector is just not
willing to invest through
traditional PPP models,
particularly in public
transport projects.
•
• Patronage has generally
increased and is expected
to continue to grow – this
is placing pressure on
services and reliability.
• The costs (subsidy) to
deliver public transport
services has been steadily
increasing – in the order of •
$550M in 2007/2008 to
approximately $700M in
2013/2014.
Critical bottlenecks (such
as the Merivale Bridge) are
strangling the network
– the additions of new
branch lines to the SEQ
network effectively means
train paths compete for
track in the congested CBD
core which progressively
dilutes the level of service in
outer networks.
It seems increasingly
unlikely that the current
Cross River Rail proposal
can be afforded in the
current scal environment
– Cross River Rail can
address many of the
network connectivity issues
and bottlenecks in the core
but the solution is expensive
and currently unfunded.
The sheer scale of the
Cross River Rail
investment may also act
to ‘crowd out’ other
projects needed across
South East Queensland as
funds become increasingly
scarce
While rail is described as the
‘backbone’ of future public
transport infrastructure,
buses carry twice as many
passengers as trains and a
balanced infrastructure
plan needs to include all
modes of transport.
GHD’s Commission
Where are the problems?
In recognising that policy
makers are at the cross roads
and face several critical
decisions, the Council of
Mayors, South East Queensland
(COMSEQ) has commissioned
GHD to investigate innovative
and value for money options
for investment in the public
transport network in SEQ.
GHD’s approach has been to
answer ve basic questions:
1. What is the current state of
play and priorities for public
transport capital
expenditure?
2. Where are the major
problems?
3. What does the commuter
want from the public
transport network in SEQ?
4. What needs to be delivered
in the next ve and ten years
and what can we afford?
5. Are there innovative and
value for money approaches
to nancing and delivering
priorities and delivering what
the commuter wants?
While vast improvements to the
public transport network have
been made over the last
decade, several critical
problems remain:
• Servicing areas in the
outer network where there
are low urban densities
– the busway system has
been a very effective
strategy to address this
issue but it is becoming a
victim of its own success as
inner city connections
congest in peak hours.
• The inner city rail “core” is
at capacity and as new
branch and spur lines are
introduced, service levels
and frequency in the wider
network are being
progressively diluted.
• The demand for public
transport is increasing and
the availability of funds to
service that demand is
constrained by a tight
scal environment.
• There is also a nagging
issue of the con ict
between Citytrain services
and freight movements to
the Port of Brisbane and
across the CBD.
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 7
South East Queenslanders
want higher frequency
services
What does the commuter
actually want?
In framing our report and
recommendations, GHD has
sought to address the key
question – what do SEQ
commuters (and tax
payers) really want?
In this regard, South East
Queenslanders are no
different to other urban
commuters. They want:
• Enhanced performance
and service reliability
• Increased service quality
and frequency
• Better use of assets and
increases in productivity
• Cost reductions per
passenger journey
• Better connectivity and
opportunities to
seamlessly transfer to
different modes.
8
To sum it up:
• South East Queensland
commuters want
increased service
quality, reliability and
greater frequency and
connectivity – “no
timetables – just turn up
and go”.
• South East
Queenslander taxpayers
want better value for
money solutions.
These practical desires of
SEQ residents are consistent
with the Council of Mayors.
COMSEQ wants a public
transport system that is an
engine for regional economic
growth, but also one that is
greener and safer and
improves quality of life in our
communities across the
whole of our region.
GHD recommends a new
vision for SEQ public
transport that puts the
commuter rst:
The public transport
system for SEQ will be
characterised by high
frequency peak services,
off peak services that
respond to demand,
seamless interchanges,
real time passenger
information systems, value
for money, effective
delivery and a focus on
customer service that is
second to none.
Developing Value for
Money Solutions
When developing its
recommendations, GHD has
proposed both a broad
philosophical change and
several pragmatic and value
for money alternatives. This
philosophical approach and
the value for money
alternatives are supported by
assessing the role of:
• Different and new
technologies
• Innovative nancing
• Introduction of new
operators into the system
• System integration.
A Change in Philosophy –
Moving to a truly integrated
network
The great urban rail (and
public transport) systems of
the world (both large and
medium sized cities) are
integrated networks that
adapt various modes of
transport for the function
required (and what the
commuter needs).
They are true networks of
independent lines
integrating with each other
through common nodes,
where passengers change to
other lines.
From the users’ perspective,
they function effectively as
one integrated system
regardless of vehicle type,
particular technology and
mode.
In Australia, our public
transport systems –
particularly rail – have evolved
from CBD based radial
systems progressively
extending branch lines into
new suburbs from the core.
In SEQ’s radial network,
each new branch line
effectively adds another
line through the central
core and can only be
accommodated by sharing
existing stations and track or
by building new
infrastructure.
The Existing Rail Network
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 9
The Cleveland
Solution
Transitioning the existing
radial system to an integrated
network
The “Cleveland Solution”
removes the Cleveland Line
services from the Merivale
Bridge (almost 50% of its
current demand) by
constructing a new rail line
from the Park Road Station to
Roma Street Station, via a
tunnel to Woolloongabba,
then a new bridge over the
river beside (and imitating) the
Captain Cook Bridge and
Riverside Expressway, and
then via a tunnel under
Herschel Street to a new
underground platform
beneath Roma Street Station.
New underground stations
would be provided at Park
Road, Woolloongabba and
Roma Street, with two new
elevated stations at Gardens
Point (QUT) and Queen
The First Step – the
Street.
“Cleveland Solution”
After Roma Street Station,
The “Cleveland Solution”
the proposal would then run
involves fast tracking of a
on surface up the Exhibition
“value for money” option to
Line corridor, with a new
address inner city rail
Exhibition Station and a new
capacity and transition from a Bowen Hills (West) Station
“radial” to an “integrated”
before joining into the Ferny
system at a cost of $2500M Grove Line at Breakfast
as opposed to the $7700M Creek.
total estimate for Cross River
The Light Metro operation on
Rail.
the Cleveland Line will include
the duplication of the track
from Manly to Cleveland. The
Light Metro will also be
segregated from freight
movements to the Port of
Brisbane and an additional
freight line passing loop will
be provided at Norman Park.
As the city grows, the
solutions become very
expensive – hence the
$7700M1 cost of the current
Cross River Rail proposal.
GHD argues that SEQ can
continue to compound the
central core capacity problem
with more branch lines and
expensive core
enhancements, or we can
transition the existing radial
system to an integrated
network.
The rst step to achieve this
could be to extract some
lines from the core and
reintroduce them as
independent lines crossing
the core – this is the basis of
the “Cleveland Solution”.
10
In essence, by extracting the
Cleveland, Ferny Grove and
Doomben lines from the core:
• Nearly half of the
capacity of train paths
on Merivale Bridge
become available at
about one-third of the
current Cross River Rail
cost
• Platform and track space
through the central core is
released
• A real opportunity to inject
innovation, private
investment, competition
and importantly, value for
money into the system, is
facilitated
• A higher frequency
service is achieved
• Citytrain rolling stock is
released to the wider
network.
Underpinning the “Cleveland
Solution” is innovative
nancing, new technology
and potential entry of a new
operator.
Cross River Rail1: Of ce of the
Infrastructure Coordinator,
Commonwealth of Australia, April
2011 for the 2011 Infrastructure
Priority List.
Value for money, innovative
solutions
What role can new
technology play?
Introducing Light Metro
technology into the SEQ rail
network provides a range of
advantages for lines not
carrying freight, including:
• Higher frequency of
services
• Far greater operational
exibility
• Improved vehicle
performance
• Lower capital and
operational costs
• Opportunity to introduce a
new operator and
competitive tension into
the system.
Light Metro technology is
used extensively in mid-sized
European cities such as
Frankfurt, Lisbon and Vienna
and is ideally suited to the
steeper grades and tighter
curves of the “Cleveland
Solution”.
Is there a role for private
nance?
The reality is the current
scal environment prevents
the funding of “mega
projects” such as Cross
River Rail – there is simply no
public funding available for a
project of this scale. The
project is currently unfunded.
There is also empirical
evidence over many years of
consistent cost overruns in
“mega projects” such as
Cross River Rail.
The key nding of the Mott
MacDonald Report (2002),
Review of Large Public
Procurement in the UK, HM
Treasury, London, National
Audit Of ce was: “high
levels of optimism in
project estimates arising
from underestimating
project costs and duration
or overestimating project
bene ts”.
In other words “mega
projects” will almost inevitably
experience a budget
blowout. There is also no
appetite for a traditional
PPP for a project of this
scale where capital costs are
high, patronage risk would be
transferred to the private
sector, and the new
infrastructure would form part
of the Queensland Rail
passenger network.
“Availability contract PPPs”
may offer a mechanism to
fund “value for money”
major public transport
projects, where contractors
and operators are paid on the
basis of the time the asset is
made available to the user.
The model is reasonably
common in social
infrastructure but emerging in
public transport across
several jurisdictions, including
for the Gold Coast Rapid
Transit System.
Adopting an Availability PPP
may also enable accessing of
funds from a wider range of
sources – bonds,
superannuation funds etc –
particularly where incentives
are used and a long contract
life is adopted (e.g. 20+
years).
What about the entry of a
new operator?
As well as being integrated
networks combining various
modes of transport for the
function required (and what
the commuter needs), a
number of the great urban
public transport systems
have more than one
operator on their network.
It could be argued that
Queensland Rail’s
monopoly sti es
innovation. The subsidy to
operate the service is
increasing from (in the order
of) $550M in 2007/8 to
approximately $700M in
2013/14. Furthermore,
empirical research and
practical experience show
multiple operators within an
integrated system:
• Introduces “competitive
tension” to the network
• Drives innovation
• Can reduce the cost per
passenger journey.
Importantly, the competition
is driven by what the
commuter wants due to the
nature of the availability
contracts developed.
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 11
Seeking ways to reduce car
dependency across SEQ
The Second Step – Beyond
the “Cleveland Solution”,
what are the key priorities?
As inner city rail capacity is
so critical to the ef ciency
and effectiveness of the
entire network – a problem
that won’t go away – a key
aspect of GHD’s
recommendations centre
around investment of
$2500M on the “Cleveland
Solution”. This is a priority
project to be delivered over
the next 5 years as the
demand over the Merivale
Bridge exceeds its capacity.
Over the last four years the
Queensland Government has
invested around $1500M per
year in public transport. This
report argues the
Queensland Government
needs to continue to invest at
the same level ($1500M per
year) to build the public
transport network that can
deliver the services required
to meet the mode share
targets.
Based on our assumption of
$7500M to be expended on
average over a ve year
period, the second stage of
GHD’s analysis involved
assessing and
recommending a range of
other priority projects valued
at $5000M over the next ve
years.
12
The legislative frameworks
are in place to enable Local
Government to accumulate
funds which can be
hypothecated to nominated
public transport infrastructure
and services.
Such projects would need to
be subject to needs
assessment, rigorous cost
bene t analysis and be clearly
articulated in local and
regional plans to ensure
appropriate use of monies.
Direct local government
contributions towards
public transport could aid
in funding needed
infrastructure and/or services
in a timelier manner than
would otherwise be the case.
Several councils are already
How can Local
making substantial
Government make a
contributions to public
contribution?
transport, from dedicated
Making a contribution to the transport levies (e.g. GCCC,
provision of public transport
SCRC) or direct from rates
infrastructure and services ts (e.g. BCC, MBRC).
well with local government.
Having a stake-in-the-game
Local overnment is well
will encourage local
placed to de ne and work
with major providers and the government to take a more
active role in community
State in developing
promotion and in seeking
appropriate services that
ways to reduce car
deliver locally and integrate
dependency across SEQ.
well across jurisdictions.
It also gives local government
a more attractive “seat at the
table” when determining
strategic priorities - this would
be a positive step forward.
GHD has also identi ed
priorities for the 6-10 year
horizon valued at an
additional $7500M.
Several of these projects are
current commitments but
GHD has also assessed
some of the current
proposals and recommended
revised scope and lower cost
(value for money) solutions.
Several new projects have
also been included where
there is a demonstrated need
and value for money is
achieved.
In tight scal times, value for
money solutions, based on
commuter needs – should be
the underlying objective.
Recommended Investment Program
Recommended Investment Program
After assessing other project
options, GHD recommends
the following project priorities
and their estimated capital
expenditure for the next ve
years, set out in Tables 01
and 02.
Table 01: Short Term Years 1 - 5
Table 02: Short Term Years 6 - 10
Project Priorities
Capital
Expenditure
(EST)
Project Priorities
Capital
Expenditure
(EST)
Sunshine Coast Connect
$420M
Eastern Bus Priority - Bus lanes
Carindale to Capalaba
$160M
Inner City Rail (The Cleveland
Solution)
$2500M
Eastern Busway 2A
$25M
New Citytrain Stabling Depot at
Clapham
$100M
Freight Line Improvements
$575M
Rail - Spring eld to Redbank Plains
Gold Coast Bus Lanes
$30M
Gold Coast Rapid - Broadbeach to
Parkwood
$280M
Rail - Comera to Helensvale
$430M
Rail - Kuraby to Kingston and
Loganlea
$230M
Eliminate Open Level Crossings
$400M
New passenger rail stock
$300M
Rail - Lawnton to Petrie third rail track
$200M
Rail - Beerburrum to Landsborough
$470M
Moreton Bay Rail Link (MBRL)
$253M
CBD Bus Infrastructure Capacity
Program
$25M
Eastern Busway - Main Ave to
Bennetts Rd
$300M
Project Priorities
Capital
Expenditure
(EST)
New passenger rail stock
$500M
Gold Coast Rapid - to Helensvale
$850M
South East Busway to Springwood
$420M
$200M
CBD Bus Infrastructure Capacity
Program
$1000M
Northern Busway - Sadlier St to
Rode Rd
$60M
Northern Busway - Chermside to
Aspley
$600M
Northern Bus Priority - Rode Rd to
Chermside
$50M
Rail - Varsity to Elanora
$1400M
Rail - Richlands to Spring eld
$280M
Sunshine Coast Light Rail (planning
and property)
$600M
Rail - Kepera to Ferny Grove
$29M
Rail - Acacia Ridge to Flagstone
$300M
Translink Station Upgrades
$161M
Eliminate Open Level Crossings
$500M
Bus Priority Toowoomba
$20M
Rail - Redbank to Ripley
$450M
Bus Priority
$350M
Park n’ Ride
$350M
Brisbane Metro (planning & property)
$200M
Public Transport 5 Year Priority Program = $7,498M
Public Transport 6 to 10 Year Priority Program = $7,520M
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 13
Short, medium and long term
solutions
GHD recommends the
following projects to be
considered in the medium
term, beyond the next 10
years:
Table 03: Medium Term Priorities
Projects Beyond Ten Years
South East Busway (Springwood to Loganholme)
Rail - Elanora to Coolangatta
Sunshine Coast Light Rail Future Stages
Rail - Redbank Plains to Ipswich
Rail - Acacia Ridge to Flagstone (future stages)
Gold Coast Rapid Transit (future stages)
Rail - Gowrie to Grandchester (future stages)
Brisbane Metro
Northern Busway (future stages)
Bus Priority and Park n’ Ride
Eastern Busway Future Stages
Redland Bus Priority
14
Introduction
A new vision for SEQ public
transport that puts the
commuter rst
In recognising that
policy makers are at
the cross roads and
face several critical
decisions, the Council
of Mayors, South East
Queensland (COMSEQ)
has commissioned GHD to
investigate innovative and
value for money options
for investment in the public
transport network in SEQ.
GHD’s analysis and
• Which projects are
recommendations are based
relevant to the commuter
on some key assumptions
needs over the next 5 and
and baseline criteria:
10 years?
• On average, $1500M is
• Are the current projects
spent on capital
relevant to these needs
expenditure for public
and do they deliver a
transport in SEQ per
timely solution to the
annum in recent years –
problem they are seeking
this represents up to
to address?
$7500M over 5 years.
•
Are the proposals
Budget papers indicate
affordable in the current
that over the last 4 years
scal environment?
Queensland has invested;
• Do the projects and
proposals represent value
- 2008/09, $1503M
for money investment of
2009/10,
$1427M
GHD’s approach has been to
the public transport
answer ve basic questions:
- 2010/11, $1605M
dollar?
1. What is the current state
- 2011/12, $1112M.
The result is not only a list of
of play and priorities for
priority projects across the
• In consultation with
public transport capital
region but a new vision for
COMSEQ,
GHD
has
expenditure?
identi ed public transport SEQ public transport that
puts the commuter at the
2. Where are the major
projects that are
problems?
considered key to solving heart of the system.
the region’s future public
3. What does the commuter
transport needs.
want from the public
transport network in SEQ? • GHD has identi ed
projects and assessed
4. What needs to be
whether they meet the
delivered in the next ve
region’s needs and offer a
and ten years and what
value proposition for the
can we afford?
taxpayer.
5. Are there innovative and
In
considering
the critical
value for money
problems to be addressed,
approaches to nancing
GHD then assessed and
and delivering priorities
prioritised projects and
and are they delivering
proposals on the basis of
what the commuter
answering these questions:
wants?
Photo: Adelaide Street, Brisbane (Brisbane Marketing)
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 15
Current Public
Tranport
Proposals
A new vision
for SEQ public transport that puts the commuter at the heart
of the system
16
To identify the range of projects to be
assessed in this report, GHD identi ed
priorities and proposals for public transport
infrastructure in South East Queensland
documented in several publications including:
• 2011 Queensland Budget papers
• Queensland Infrastructure Plan 2011 (QIP)
• Various SEQIP and QIP publications over
recent years
• Council of Mayors (SEQ) Getting SEQ
Moving 2011-12 Infrastructure Priorities.
Which projects are relevant
to the commuter...
Table 04: Signi cant Public Transport Projects (with published
estimates)
The 2011 Budget listed
public transport projects
totalling $3725M over 3
years. The projects are either
being completed or
committed by virtue of the
funding, and consequently
are not generally new
initiatives, but prior
commitments.
In consultation with
COMSEQ, GHD identi ed
two categories of projects
and proposals:
• Signi cant Public
Transport Projects –
major public transport
projects speci cally
identi ed in planning
documents, accompanied
with cost estimates
• Allied Public Transport
Projects – projects
identi ed as components
of major projects, or other
signi cant developments.
A number of Signi cant
Public Transport Projects
(with capital expenditure
estimates) has also been
identi ed in published
planning documents, such as
QIP (see Table 04).
These projects vary from
reasonably current to long
term aspirational projects
beyond the 5 to 10 year
horizon of this study.
However, they were
examined for relevance to the
existing public transport
needs. Some of these
projects could form the early
stage of the ultimate
con guration (e.g. Coast
Connect could be an early
form of CAMCOS).
A number of other Allied
Public Transport Projects
has also emerged as
components of the major
initiatives such as Cross River
Rail, or other signi cant
developments (see Table 05).
When we take into account
these two categories of
projects, there are currently
almost 30 budgeted,
signi cant and allied
projects listed at a value of
just over $35000M that are
considered priorities to
varying degrees.
The Signi cant Public
Transport Projects and Allied
Public Transport Projects
became the target projects
for this study. GHD reviewed
those projects and
recommended priority
projects over two ve year
timeframes:
• 2012 – 2017
• 2017 – 2022.
Signi cant Public Transport Projects
Capital
Expenditure (EST)
Project Priorities CONT.
Capital
Expenditure (EST)
Moreton Bay Rail Link
$1147M
Sunshine Coast Connect
$420M
New passenger rail stock (new
generation program)
$1214M
Rail - Gowrie to Grandchester rail line
$1680M
Rail - Coomera to Helensvale
$432M
Northern Busway - Future Stages
(planning)
$29M
Rail - Varsity to Elanora
$1391M
New Stabling Facilities (planning)
$35M
Rail - Elanora to Coolangatta
$840M
Rail - Kuraby to Kingston and Loganlea
$230M
Rail - Lawnton to Petrie third rail track
$114M
Gold Coast Rapid Transit - future stages
$2160M
South East Busway (Eight Mile Plains to
Springwood)
$276M
Redland Bus Priority
Signi cant Public Transport Projects = $30,641M
Table 05: Allied Public Transport Projects
Project Priorities
Capital Expenditure
(EST)
Rail - New Citytain Stabling Depot at
Clapham
$100M
$156M
Freight Line improvements (coal line
grade separations
$2000M
CBD Bus Infrastructure capacity program
$500M
Gold Coast Bus Lanes
$31M
Eastern Busway Future Stages
$3917M
Rail - Acacia Ridge to Flagstone
$900M
Inner City Rail (Cross River Rail)
$7700M
Rail - Spring eld to Redbank Plains
$200M
Rail - Ipswich to Spring eld
$1800M
Rail - Redbank Plains to Ripley
$400M
Rail - Beerburrum to Landsborough
$480M
Eliminate Open Level Crossings
$770M
Rail - Landborough to Nambour
$2160M
Cross RIver Rail (Stage 2 - Inner City
Metro)
Uncosted
Rail - CAMCOS
$3960M
Allied Public Transport Projects = $4,401M
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 17
18
The Major Problems
The public transport system
primarily consists of the rail
and bus infrastructure that
serves South East
Queensland (SEQ). This
infrastructure has historically
evolved to serve the low
urban densities that are
typical of the suburban
developments in SEQ.
In the past, this model of low
density suburbs suited the
high mobility offered by the
motor car, but as traf c
congestion on the road
network grew with Brisbane’s
population, more pressure
has been placed on public
transport services to offer a
viable alternative for the
movement of people.
Over the last decade, the
Queensland Government has
invested heavily in the
express busway system as a
strategy to provide an
ef cient public transport
service to the low densities of
the dormitory suburbs.
This strategy has been so
successful that the busway
system is now experiencing
signi cant congestion and
further investment is required
to fund a number of
proposals to solve these
problems.
In particular, the inner city
sections of the South East
Busway are under increasing
pressure and the Victoria
Bridge and Adelaide Streets
link, for example, are
frequently experiencing
signi cant bus congestion
during peak periods.
The Brisbane City Council
has commissioned a $2M
feasibility study on building a
‘green bridge’ for buses from
the Busway to connect to a
tunnel under Adelaide Street,
effectively extending the
Busway right through the city.
This transformational project
is projected to cost upwards
of $2000M.
The rail system has evolved
over a much longer period of
time and tends to address
the longer journeys across
the urban area. Its
catchments are limited by the
geographic location of those
railway lines and the modes
that feed its stations.
In response to the increasing
congestion in the transport
system, urban densities are
increasing around railway
stations, improved feeder
services and park and ride
facilities and new spur lines
are generating the demand
for additional rail services.
Several critical problems
remain despite vast
improvements to the network
As the road system becomes
congested, more people are
travelling the longer distances
to the city on the Gold Coast
Line, the Caboolture Line and
Ipswich Line. Services to the
extremities of these lines are
being extended and
expanded to meet this
demand. The inner city rail
“core”, between Roma Street
Station and Bowen Hills
Station, is now approaching
capacity with the growth in
extremities of the rail network.
The Cross River Rail (CRR)
project was conceived to
solve this problem. CRR was
also an opportunity to
address the con ict between
the Citytrain services and the
freight movements to the Port
of Brisbane and across the
city.
Recent trends would also
indicate the demand for
investment in public transport
is increasing and the
availability of funds to service
that demand is now being
constrained by a restrained
scal environment.
It has become apparent that
the public transport dollar
needs to be stretched further
through prudent project
scoping to solve the
immediate problems in the
system.
So while vast improvements
to the public transport
network have been made
over the last decade, several
critical problems remain:
• Servicing areas in the
outer network where
there are low urban
densities – the busway
system has been a very
effective strategy to
address this issue but it is
becoming a victim of its
own success as inner city
connections congest in
peak hours.
• The inner city rail “core”
is at capacity and as new
branch and spur lines are
introduced, service levels Photo: Harrison Saragossi
and frequency in the
wider network are being
progressively diluted.
• The demand for public
transport is increasing
as the population grows
and the cost and
congestion of the private
alternative increases
• There is also a nagging
issue of the con ict
between Citytrain
services and freight
movements to the Port of
Brisbane and across the
CBD
• Investment in public
transport will be
constrained by the
availability of funds.
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 19
The Opportunity
The State Government’s
recently released Integrated
Regional Transport Plan for
SEQ “Connecting SEQ 2031”
includes an ambitious target
of increasing the modal share
of regional daily trips taken on
public transport from 7%
(2006) to 14% (2031).
Given population growth, that
would represent a trebling of
total trips by public transport
from 652,000 trips per day to
2 million trips per day. This
will require a substantial
investment in public transport
infrastructure and also
operating expenses.
20
To put that into scale, the
system accommodated an
extra 56 million passengers in
2009-10 compared to 2003-4.
It will need to accommodate
an extra 276 million
passengers by 2031 to meet
the State Government’s
targets.
This ambitious target is
achievable – in the six years to
2009-10, public transport
patronage grew by 47%, three
times faster than population
growth.
This has been on the back of a
infrastructure program to
improve the network services
of busways and rail
improvements.
However, failure to make this
investment will result in a
seriously congested road
network which is already
costing the region around
$3000M a year in lost
productivity.
Table 06: Annual public transport passengers 2003-04 to 2009-10
Source: Translink Transit Authority public transport patronage data.
Note: Excludes passenger boardings on ferry services.
Substantial investment into
public transport needs to
occur right across the region
Substantial investment into
public transport needs to
occur right across the region
as demonstrated by the
public transport daily trip
targets by local government
area (LGA) in Connecting
SEQ 2031 shown in Table 07.
These targets highlight the
challenge not just of
commuting from green eld
areas in the outer suburbs,
but also the need to
signi cantly increase public
transport modal shares in
Brisbane and Gold Coast as
the population density of
these cities increase.
Over the past four years, the
State Government has
invested around $1500M a
year into public transport
infrastructure in SEQ,
although investment agged
a little this year:
• 2008-09 ($1503M)
• 2009-10 ($1427M)
• 2010-11 ($1605M)
• 2011-12 ($1112M)
This report argues that,
notwithstanding its nancial
constraints, the State needs
to continue to spend at
around the same level
($1500M a year) to build the
network that can deliver the
services needed to meet the
modal share target.
It is a huge challenge, but it is
also a huge opportunity for
SEQ. SEQ residents have
shown that if public transport
is ef cient, affordable and
reliable, they will embrace
public transport.
This behavioural change will
need to be promoted over
the next two decades if our
region is to accommodate
projected population growth
without compromising
productivity, liveability or
sustainability.
Table 07: 2031 Mode Share Targets by Local Government Area
Local Government Area (LGA)
2006
Modal Share
(%)
2031
Target
Modal Share
(%)
Target
Increase
Brisbane
360,000
10.3%
860,000
20%
500,000
Ipswich
33,000
6.5%
185,000
12%
152,000
Moreton Bay
72,000
6.2%
190,000
11%
118,000
Logan
50,000
5.5%
140,000
10%
90,000
Redland
25,000
5.7%
65,000
10%
40,000
Gold Coast
72,000
4.4%
400,000
15%
328,000
Sunshine Coast
40,000
3.6%
175,000
10%
135,000
(Source: Budget papers)
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 21
Affordable, Timely and Innovative
Solutions
In considering the critical
problems to be addressed,
GHD assessed and
prioritised projects and
proposals on the basis of
answering these questions:
• Which projects are
relevant to the commuter
needs over the next ve
and ten years?
• Are the current projects
relevant to these needs
and do they deliver a
timely solution to the
problem they are seeking
to address?
• Are the proposals
affordable in the current
scal environment?
• Can they be staged to
reduce the initial
investment?
• Do the projects and
proposals represent value
for money investment of
the public transport
dollar?
The key questions are:
• Where do South East
Queenslanders get the
best value from dollars
spent?
• Are we extracting
maximum value for users
from our systems and the
funds allocated?
22
A number of projects (listed in Listed projects considered necessary and appropriate for
2012-2017 year program are:
Budget 2011, QIP) are
considered to be timely and
valuable investments:
Table 08: Project Priorities 2012-2017 year Program
Listed projects considered necessary and appropriate for
2017 - 2022 year Program are:
Table 09: Project Priorities 2017-2022 year Program
Project Priorities 1-5 year program
Capital
Expenditure
(EST)
Project Priorities 6-10 year program
Capital
Expenditure
(EST)
Moreton Bay Rail Link (MBRL)
$1147M
Gold Coast Rapid Transit (Stage 2)
$850M
New Citytrain Stabling Depot at Clapham
$100M
$276M
Gold Coast Bus Lanes
$30M
South East Busway (Eight Mile Plains to
Springwood)
Rail - Coomera to Helensvale
$432M
Rail - Ripley to Spring eld
$650M
Rail - Kuraby to Kingston and Loganlea
$230M
Rail - Varsity to Elanora
$1400M
Eliminate Open Level Crossings (over 10 years)
$770M
Redland Bus Priority
$156M
Sunshine Coast Connect
$420M
Rail - Lawnton to Petrie third rail track
$200M
Listed projects considered to be beyond the 10 year Program
are:
Rail - Beerburrum to Landsborough
$470M
Table 10: Projects beyond the 10 year Program
Translink Station Upgrades
$161M
Rail - Richlands to Spring eld
$270M
Projects beyond the 5 - 10 year Horizon
Capital
Expenditure
(EST)
Rail - CAMCOS
$3960M
Rail - Elanora to Coolangatta
$840M
South East Busway (Springwood to
Loganholme)
$600M
Rail - Ipswich to Ripley
$1150M
How do Queenslanders get
the biggest bang for their
buck?
Project Proposals to be Reviewed
As well as some new project Table 11: Signi cant Public Transport Projects
proposals, several projects
Capital
provide an opportunity to
Signi cant Public Transport Projects
Expenditure
review the scope, reduce
(EST)
cost and hence improve
the value of the investment.
Cross River Rail (CRR)
$7700M
These projects to be
reviewed, and the published
Eastern Busway Future Stages
$3917M
estimated cost, are:
Northern Busway Future Stages (part of)
$620M
CBD Bus Infrastructure capacity program
$500M
Table 12: Allied Public Transport Projects
Allied Public Transport Projects
Capital
Expenditure
(EST)
Rail - New City Train Stabling Depot at
Clapham
$100M
Freight Line Improvements
$2000M
Rail - Acacia Ridge to Flagstone
$900M
Cross City Metro
$6000M
Photo: Victoria Bridge buses
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 23
Signi cant Projects for Review
Cross River Rail or The
Cleveland Solution
The inner city rail network is
operating close to capacity
with the city platforms from
Roma Street Station to
Bowen Hills experiencing
high utilisation and effectively
no room for expansion.
In the morning peak hour, the
Merivale Bridge over the
Brisbane River currently
operates 19 services on the
Gold Coast (4), Beenleigh (7)
and Cleveland (8) Lines. At 3
minute headways the single
northbound track over the
bridge is considered to have
a theoretical capacity for 20
train paths in the morning
peak hour. This capacity
restriction is con rmed by the
delays regularly experienced
by these services during the
morning peak.
The available capacity on this
inner city network is
dominated by the Citytrain
services in the peak hours,
signi cantly impairing the
ability to operate reliable
freight services across the
city or to the Port of
Brisbane. Consequently, the
Inner City Rail Capacity
project was developed and
the Cross River Rail proposal
was identi ed to construct
two new tracks in tunnel from
Yeerongpilly in the south to
north of Bowen Hills.
24
The project includes four new
underground stations at
Boggo Road,
Woolloongabba, Albert Street
and Roma Street and two
new surface stations at
Yeerongpilly and the
Exhibition. The project also
includes a new Citytrain
stabling facility at Clapham,
adjacent to Moorooka.
While the Cross River Rail
project is a visionary solution
to the capacity problems of
inner city rail network, the
$7700M estimated cost of
the proposal will seriously test
the borrowing capacity of
most governments and
would only attract very
modest private capital. A
more affordable solution
appears to be warranted.
Financing a project of this
scale would necessarily lead
to delays in delivery of other
urgently needed public
transport infrastructure
across the rest of the SEQ
network.
The “Cleveland Solution”
removes the Cleveland Line
services from the Merivale
Bridge by constructing a new
rail line from the Park Road
Station to Roma Street
Station, via a tunnel to
Woolloongabba, then a new
bridge over the river beside
(and imitating) the Captain
Cook Bridge and Riverside
Expressway, and then via a
tunnel beneath Herschel
Street to a new underground
platform under the Roma
Street Station.
New underground stations
would be provided at Park
Road and Woolloongabba,
and elevated stations at
Gardens Point (QUT) and/or
Queen Street.
After Roma Street Station the
proposal would then run on
surface up the Exhibition Line
corridor, with a new Exhibition
Station and a new Bowen
Hills (West) Station before
joining into the Ferny Grove
Line at Breakfast Creek.
This proposal would remove
both the Cleveland Line and
the Ferny Grove Line from the
congested rail network core
between Bowen Hills and
Roma St (but would
interchange with the northern
line at those two stations).
Critically, the proposal
releases the Cleveland Line
train paths (8 in peak hour)
across the Merivale Bridge,
providing an immediate
capacity gain of over 70% for
growth on the Beenleigh and
Gold Coast Lines.
While Cross River Rail is a
visionary solution, a more
affordable solution is needed
The “Cleveland Solution” is
made possible by introducing
Light Metro rolling stock that
can negotiate the tighter
corners and steeper grades
of the proposed alignment
between Park Road and
Roma St Stations.
Light Metro rolling stock has
a capacity of approximately
600 passengers per train and
would operate at 3 to 5
minute headways to service
the demand on the Cleveland
Line. Consequently, the
Cleveland and Ferny Grove
Lines would enjoy a much
more frequent service.
The cost of the proposal,
including a new eet of rolling
stock, is estimated to be
$2500M. It would release 24
existing 6 car electric multiple
unit (EMU) sets back to the
Citytrain network at an
estimated value of $240M.
A major project such as the
“Cleveland Solution” (or the
Cross River Rail) will take
several years to deliver, e.g. 4
years to 2016, and over the
next few years rail
passengers on the three lines
entering the city over the
Merivale Bridge will continue
to experience increasing
congestion and signi cant
delay.
Consideration needs to be
given to minor technical
works and rescheduling of
services to mitigate these
delays before the “Cleveland
Solution” is affected.
Duplication of the Ferny Grove
Line, from Keperra to Ferny
Grove was funded in Budget
2011-12 for $29M.
The CRR project was originally
planned to meet the Merivale
Bridge capacity crisis in 2016,
but with limited funding its
completion has now been
delayed until 2020.
The Clevelend Solution is more
affordable, easier to fund
through an Availability PPP and
could be delivered to meet the
2016 deadline.
The Light Metro operation on
the Cleveland Line will include
the duplication of the track from
Manly to Cleveland. The Light
Metro will also be segregated
from freight movements to the
Port of Brisbane and an
additional freight line passing
loop will be provided at Norman
Park.
A visionary approach – moving to an integrated
network – Stage 2. Extracting the Cleveland/
Ferny Grove and Doomben lines from the core.
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 25
Photo: Light Metro, Paris
26
The Cleveland Solution - Myths and
Facts
MYTHS
FACTS
Cross River Rail addresses the need for additional inner city capacity to support northern
corridor rail services soon after 2016 – the Cleveland Solution doesn’t address this issue.
The Cleveland Solution addresses this issue by running both the Cleveland and Ferny Grove
lines as a pair down the Exhibition Line, releasing capacity on the northern and southern
corridors.
The Cleveland Solution is not consistent with Connecting SEQ 2031 – An Integrated
Transport Plan for SEQ which requires the network to meet future transport needs in the
short and long terms.
The Cleveland Solution addresses short, medium and long term requirements to meet future
transport needs by transitioning the rail network from a radial to a fully integrated system
which is consistent with the objectives of Connecting SEQ 2031 – An Integrated Transport
Plan for SEQ. However, Connecting SEQ is totally dependent on the timely funding and
delivery of Cross River Rail.
The Cleveland Solution would inevitably lead to a reduction in capacity on the Cleveland Line
as light rail carries less passengers than heavy rail EMUs.
EMU capacity on the Cleveland Line could run at 20 trains per hour or 15000 people per
hour to match its predicted growth of 4% pa. Light metro 3 car trains can carry an
equivalent capacity to EMU sets but at a far greater frequency because of reduced
headways.
Light rail rolling stock can’t operate at the same speeds as heavy rail resulting in increased
transit times for commuters.
The proposed rolling stock is project speci c light metro rolling stock which can operate at
80kmh, particularly with higher oors and larger wheels. This is the same speed as heavy rail
travels on the Cleveland Line.
The proposed alignment would remove direct services from Cleveland to key inner city areas
of South Brisbane.
The Cleveland Solution does not run directly through South Brisbane. However, major
interchanges at Park Road, Roma Street and Bowen Hills will provide direct access to the
heavy rail network as well as key centres such as the University of Queensland.
Commuters interchanging at Park Road and Bowen Hills may not be able to transfer to the
heavy rail network on the north / south corridor as trains maybe full during peak hour.
The main interchange will always be Roma Street but as the Cleveland Solution allows
almost 50% extra capacity across Merivale Bridge, far higher frequency services should be
able to be achieved on the north / south corridor and the Gold Coast / Beenleigh lines in
particular.
Cross River Rail provides a new station at Albert Street whereas the Cleveland Solution only
provides new stations on the river precinct.
The Cleveland Solution provides much needed additional access for students at QUT and
the growing river precinct. An Albert Street station can be included in the scheme at a higher
cost. However, the Portside to Indooroopilly driverless metro proposed for 2017 – 2022
provides for additional CBD underground stations.
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 27
The future of the SEQ public
transport system
Eastern Busway Future
Stages | Stage 2 Main Ave
to Bennetts Rd
The 1km Stage 1 of the
Eastern Busway - Buranda to
Main Avenue, Coorparoo,
was recently completed at a
cost of $466M. A section of
this project known as 2A has
been funded in the 2011-12
Budget and the $25M
allocation has been included
in the 2012-2017 Program.
The next stage from Main
Ave to Bennetts Road is
understood to also be in
tunnel at a cost of $690M.
This cost for approximately
1.5 km of busway is
considered extravagant given
the congestion downstream
in the busway network
(discussed above) and the
localised congestion on Old
Cleveland Road.
28
It is understood that
congestion on Old Cleveland
Road is signi cant in peak
periods but the discrete use
of on road bus lanes (in lieu of
a bus tunnel) and limited
investment in bus stops (in
lieu of a full bus station) may
provide better value for
money.
The proposed solution
includes the full bus station
proposed for the Myer site,
with grade separated access
from Old Cleveland Road,
and bus lanes on Old
Cleveland Road at a more
affordable cost of $300M.
These bus lanes would be
additional to existing traf c
lanes and would involve
some widening of the
roadway and resumption of
kerbside parking.
The bus lanes from Carindale
to Capalaba (including a
direct access into the
Carindale Centre) at an
estimated cost of $160M are
included in the ve year
program.
Northern Busway Future
Stages | Stage 2 Sadlier St
to Rode Rd
The rst stage of the northern
busway is being delivered
with the Airport Link tollway
to Kedron. It will access north
onto Gympie Road at Sadlier
Street. A study is currently
developing the concept to
extend the busway from
Sadlier Street to Prince
Charles Hospital via Rode
Road and then to Braken
Ridge via Chermside and
Aspley. Sections of this
busway are proposed to be
in tunnel or involve acquiring
property for a surface
busway at signi cant cost.
Airport Link is due to open to
traf c in mid 2012 and is
expected to increase traf c
volumes on Gympie Road to
super saturated levels. This
environment will be
inappropriate for buses
accessing the northern
busway along Gympie Road
and it is unlikely that the
major schemes being
considered could be affected
for several years.
Consequently, as an
alternative scheme, the rst
section of the Northern
Busway must facilitate the
safe and expedient
movement of buses along
this section of Gympie Road
and should be accelerated as
a high priority capable of
being implemented by mid
2012.
The alternate proposal is to
construct this section at
surface level (and avoid
tunnel sections) by widening
Gympie Road locally to
create a bus lane in each
direction (in lieu of kerbside
parking only). The work
would include establishing
major stops and other bus
priority measures along Rode
Road and Hamilton Road to
Chermside.
Bus priority should be
provided at all con ict points
with general traf c, including
traf c signals as required. The
estimated cost of work along
Gympie Road is $60M, while
additional bus priority
measures on Rode Road and
Hamilton Road are $50M.
These bus lanes would be
additional to existing traf c
lanes and would involve
some widening of the
roadway and resumption of
kerbside parking.
The further extension of
busway facilities including
grade separated access to
Chermside, and a busway to
Aspley would be provided in
the second ve years, 20172022 at a cost of $600M.
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 29
South East Queenslanders
want reliability and higher
frequency services
CBD Bus Infrastructure
Capacity Program
The popularity of the South
East Busway into the city has
resulted in congestion from
the busway tunnel onto
Melbourne Street, through
the Cultural Centre Bus
Station and over the Victoria
Bridge into the CBD (note
that some bus routes
currently utilise the Captain
Cook Bridge to ease
congestion on the busway).
Buses can also experience
some delay as they pass
through three sets of
signalised intersections at the
busway tunnel/Melbourne
Street, Grey Street/
Melbourne Street and North
Quay/William Street.
The main delay, however,
appears to be at the Cultural
Centre Bus Station and can
be random in nature. It is not
uncommon for buses to
experience long queues on
the busway between
Melbourne Street and South
Bank Station heading
towards the CBD (in morning
peak hour) and from the
Cultural Centre stop over the
Victoria Bridge (in evening
peak hour).
30
Understand the effectiveness
of bus priority initiatives
before committing to capital
expenditure
The Cultural Centre Bus
Station has become the
funnel for bus services
crossing the Brisbane River
to Southbank and West End.
It accommodates more
services than the bus stations
at King George Square
(KGS), Queen Street,
Adelaide Street or Southbank
Bus Station (that feed it).
The introduction of the high
frequency City Glider service
to West End through the
Cultural Centre Bus Station
has increased the load on
this bus station and.
consequently, it now appears
to be beyond is operational
capacity.
The current mode of
operation at the Cultural
Centre Bus Station directs
arriving buses to the lead
stop with follow up buses
occupying available space on
a random basis (as per
Southbank Bus Station). This
“free form” platform soon
exhausts its capacity and bus
queues build as buses wait
for available kerb space.
The high proportion of nonregular users (e.g. tourists)
can impede the boarding
process with driver ticketing
also creating random events
that throw the operation of
the station, and its
approaches, into congestion.
Current public transport
planning suggests that bus
services will only increase
within coming years with the
development of the Eastern
and Northern busways, so a
viable solution to ease
congestion is required.
The problem appears to be a
combination of factors that
may not be solved through a
single capital work
investment, although planning
is underway to develop a
longer term solution, such as
a dedicated river bus bridge
($500M) into an Adelaide
Street tunnel ($1500M).
The Brisbane City Council
has commissioned a $2M
feasibility study into an
extension of the South East
Busway into the city via a
bridge parallel to Victoria
Bridge and a tunnel under the
length of Adelaide Street to
Post Of ce Square. Such an
ambitious project would be
likely to cost in excess of
$2000M.
A cross river bridge (without a
tunnel through the city) is
included in the Queensland
Infrastructure Plan costed at
$500M.
We have made provision for
$1000M of expenditure to
progress this project in the
Program for 2017-2022.
In the short term, operational
modi cations could improve
the ow of buses through this
corridor. These modi cations
could include:
1. Designate bus routes to
speci c stops at the
Cultural Centre Bus
Station platform (e.g. King
George Square)
2. Pre-sell tickets to non
regular users with platform
based ticket sales
3. Re-route the West End
services (including the City
Glider) around the Cultural
Centre Bus Station, to
new stops between Grey
and Merivale Streets
(estimated cost of $5M)
4. Grade separate the
con ict point between
general traf c on
Melbourne Street and the
busway tunnel exit
(estimated cost of $20M).
A $25M provision for point 3
and 4 above has a new bus
bridge across the been
included in the program for
2012-2017.
Photo – The Go Card System (The Brisbane Times)
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 31
Buses and busways are ideal
for low density areas
Bus Priority/Park and Ride
The Program includes
investment for speci c
elements of the Northern and
Eastern Busways and the
CBD Bus Capacity Program.
Hence, complementary
investment will need to be
made for various bus priority
improvements and park and
ride facilities feeding the
Busway system.
The 2017-2022 Program
includes $350M for bus
priority and $350M for park
and ride facilities.
32
In Toowoomba, the
population is forecast to
increase from 160,000 to
230,000 by 2031.
Toowoomba acts as a focal
point for interstate and
intrastate freight movement,
as three major highways
converge in Toowoomba.
As a result, Toowoomba
streets carry a high
concentration of commercial/
heavy vehicles and its central
business district provides a
highway function for heavy
vehicle through traf c.
The proposed Toowoomba
Bypass will divert some of
this commercial traf c around
the city, but traf c on the city
road network will continue to
frustrate public transport
services.
A suite of bus priority facilities
has been proposed to ensure
public transport provides a
viable option to Toowoomba
residents.
A $20M provision for bus
priority facilities in
Toowoomba has been
included in the 2012-2017
Program.
Allied Projects for Review
Rail New City Train Stabling
Depot at Clapham
The Cross River Rail project
included a new stabling
facility at Clapham. The
existing Mayne Stabling Yard
has little opportunity for
expansion and with the
anticipated future growth in
the Citytrain services a new
stabling facility will be
required.
A stabling yard on the
southern side of the city
would be desirable and the
facility proposed for the Cross
River Rail project at Clapham
is an appropriate investment.
These stabling yards are
estimated to cost $100M.
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 33
Con icts between passenger
and freight movements have
to be xed
Freight Line Improvements
- coal line grade
separations
The Cross River Rail project
included a tunnelled section
from Yeerongpilly to Park
Road to release surface track
currently shared with the
Gold Coast Line for freight
movements across the city
and to the Port of Brisbane.
This section of tunnel is
estimated to cost $2000M.
The “Cleveland Solution”
does not provide any
additional capacity south of
Park Road Station so an
alternative needs to be
considered.
The rail corridor between
Park Road and Yeerongpilly
has three tracks, An Up and
Down Track for the Beenleigh
Line (and non-peak direction
Gold Coast Line services)
and a dual gauge line for the
peak direction Gold Coast
Line services and any freight
or interstate passenger trains.
These freight and passenger
movements are generally
prohibited during peak hours
due to the dominance of the
Citytrain services. Hence,
there is a need for a fourth
track to permit freight
movements, especially to the
Port of Brisbane, to operate
independently from the Gold
Coast Line.
34
The existing rail corridor is
relatively narrow and a fourth
track will require some
property acquisition and
engineering solutions to
accommodate the fourth
track. This proposal will also
need to include the grade
separation of a freight line into
the Tennyson Line at
Moorooka (for the long coal
trains to the Port of Brisbane).
In comparison to the $2000M
tunnelled section of the Cross
River Rail solution south of
Brisbane River, the
“engineered” fourth track at
an estimated cost of $575M,
appears to offer signi cant
value in the current scal
environment.
This would free up the third
track for additional public
transport movements along
the Gold Coast line and
facilitate increased frequency
of services.
Is there a better way?
Toowoomba Access
The Cross River Rail
improvements to resolve the
con ict between public
transport services and the
freight line to the Port of
Brisbane raises the associated
issue of freight access down
the range from Toowoomba.
Public transport services
between Brisbane and
Toowoomba could bene t
from a more modern and
faster alignment of the rail line
between Grandchester and
Gowrie, particularly the range
crossing. The twice weekly
Westlander service currently
takes over 4 hours to
complete the trip. Regular
Citytrain services terminate at
Rosewood.
The existing rail alignment
from Gowrie to Grandchester
is very slow and has been
identi ed for realignment to
improve freight access to
Brisbane, particularly coal to
the Port of Brisbane and is
already running at capacity.
As such the line will be unable
to cope with expected
expansion of the mining
industry in the Surat Basin.
The Gowrie to Grandchester
rail realignment project involve
several kilometres of tunnelling
and is expensive, listed in the
2009 SEQIPP with an
estimate of $1400M.
The 2010 SEQIPP had a
target completion timeline of
2026-31 for the project,
although the 2011 QIP
commits only to a Surat
Basin rail corridor feasibility
study to be conducted 20112013.
While important to freight
movements of mining and
agricultural to the Port of
Brisbane, its public transport
bene ts are fairly minimal in
the short or medium terms.
As such, the rail project is
beyond the scope of this
report.
The Council of Mayors (SEQ)
current list of priority projects
includes funding for a second
range road crossing around
Toowoomba which would
reduce heavy freight
movements through the
Toowoomba CBD. The rail
project would be a logical
medium term complement to
this urgent priority, and would
be a key investment in the
strategic freight network for
the region.
It is likely that substantial
investment from the
resources sector would be
needed to fund the Gowrie to
Grandchester project.
Photo: Toowoomba Range
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 35
Servicing new growth in the
Southern corridor
Rail - Acacia Ridge to
Flagstone
There is increasing pressure
for urban and light industrial
development to occur in the
southern corridor to
Beaudesert. With signi cant
urban development being
considered from Parkinson to
Boronia, Flagstone and
Bromelton, there is an
opportunity to utilise the
existing standard gauge track
to provide an embryonic
passenger rail service from
these developments to
greater Brisbane.
The proposal would be to
construct island platform
stations at Flagstone, Boronia
and Parkinson and a new
standard gauge platform at
Salisbury. This infrastructure
would facilitate a 15 minute
frequency diesel-powered
shuttle service to the
Beenleigh and Gold Coast
Lines at Salisbury station.
The stations, track and rolling
stock for the Flagstone rail
service is estimated to cost
$300M.
36
Brisbane Cross City Metro
- Portside to Indooroopilly
In 2007, the Lord Mayor’s
Taskforce Investigation
(LMTFI) identi ed three inner
city metro lines (University,
Hospital and Sports Lines) as
shallow tunnel, “tube” style
shuttle services.
In 2008, the Inner City Rail
Capacity Study considered
how these lines may con ict
or synergise with the Cross
River Rail (CRR) proposal and
concluded that a metro line,
like the University Line – from
St Lucia to Teneriffe – could
complement the CRR and
form a subsequent stage to it
(referred to in this study as
Cross River Rail Stage 2).
GHD has assessed both
these proposals and has
given consideration to an
extension of the University
Line concept in the form of a
Driverless Underground
Metro on a corridor from
Indooroopilly, in the west, to
Portside, in the east, via
Bulimba. The line would
integrate with the Citytrain
network at interchanges at
Indooroopilly and South
Brisbane. The project cost is
approximately $4000M for
this stage.
Consideration has also been
given to an extension further
west to Darra railway station
via the suburbs of Kenmore,
Jindalee and Mount
Ommaney at a cost of
$2000M.
The Metro as a medium term
project:
• Effectively links the
valuable peninsulas of the
Brisbane River with a high
frequency shuttle service
to facilitate and connect
more intensive potential
developments along the
river.
• Connects a new “string”
of inner city stations (at
Albert Street, Centenary
Place and James Street)
offset to the east of the
existing CBD rail stations
with potentially high
density developments
along the river.
• Signi cantly enhances
accessibility across the
river and forms another
key plank in the goal of
transitioning the system
from a radial to an
integrated network of
independent lines.
The Cross City Metro is a
visionary project to facilitate
the quality development of
inner Brisbane as the city
matures in a “Peak Oil”
environment. It is unlikely to
be justi ed within the 10 year
horizon but the $4000M rst
stage to Indooroopilly should
be considered for delivery in
the medium term (2022 2027).
The extension from
Indooroopilly to Darra at a
cost of $2000M would also
be beyond the ten year
horizon subject to the ability
of the project to attract PPP
funding.
Funding for the planning and
property acquisition
associated with the Brisbane
Metro of $200M has been
included in the Program
2017-2022.
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 37
Moreton Bay Rail Link - a
long time coming but here to
stay
An observation about
Moreton Bay Rail Link MBRL
The 12km heavy rail spur line
from Petrie to Kippa-Ring is
being funded by the
Commonwealth, State and
Morten Bay Council
governments following a
2010 Federal election
commitment.
The project had been
discussed for over 50 years
and was submitted to
Infrastructure Australia for
funding in 2008 as a heavy
rail spur line. The project
proposes six stations at an
average spacing of 2km and
a terminus on the edge of the
suburb of Kippa-Ring.
The spur line con guration
will be required to share
platform space through the
network core of CBD stations
and consequently this service
will struggle to achieve
attractive frequencies of
service.
38
The residents in the Petrie to
Kippa-Ring corridor have
waited some time for heavy
rail. The project enjoys
support from all sides of
politics at the local, state and
Commonwealth levels and
will be delivered in 2014.
Funding has been committed
by the Commonwealth
($742M), Queensland
($300M) and Moreton Bay
Regional Council ($105M).
It would be remiss however,
not to note that a less
expensive, higher frequency
customer focussed solution
could be achieved for the
residents of the corridor if a
high frequency busway or
light rail was considered.
A light rail or bus shuttle
would interchange at Petrie
Station on the main northern
line with potentially higher
frequency services to
Caboolture.
The advantage of a bus or
light rail based transit would
be its ability to penetrate
further into the low density
Redcliffe peninsula.
The 2011-12 Budget makes
a $253M provision for
planning/property and early
works that is included in the
2012-17 Program.
Projects Beyond 2022
Longer term public transport
projects considered to be
beyond the current ten year
program, but worthy of future
consideration are shown in
Table 13:
Table 13: Projects Beyond Ten Years
Projects Beyond Ten Years
South East Busway (Springwood to Loganholme)
Rail - Elanora to Coolangatta
Sunshine Coast Light Rail Future Stages
Rail - Redbank Plains to Ipswich
Rail - Acacia Ridge to Flagstone (future stages)
Gold Coast Rapid Transit (future stages)
Rail - Gowrie to Grandchester (future stages)
Brisbane Metro
Northern Busway (future stages)
Bus Priority and Park n’ Ride
Eastern Busway Future Stages
Redland Bus Priority
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 39
What needs to
be delivered in
the next 5 and 10
years?
What needs
to be Delivered Between Now and 2022?
40
There are a range of pressure points for
public transport infrastructure in SEQ but the
priority should be given to providing a reliable
and frequent service for users and to
overcome existing issues critical to the safe
and smooth operation of the public transport
system.
Providing a reliable and
frequent service for users
Recommended Investment Program
Table 14: Public Transport 5 Year Priority Program, 2012 - 2017
After assessing project
options, GHD recommends
Capital
the project priorities with
estimated capital expenditure
Project Priorities
Expenditure
Project Priorities
(QLD Budget) for the next ve
(EST)
year periods,
2012 - 2017 and 2017 Sunshine Coast Connect
$420M
Eastern Bus Priority - Bus lanes
2022 as:
Carindale to Capalaba
Inner City Rail (The Cleveland
Solution)
$2500M
New Citytrain Stabling Depot at
Clapham
$100M
Gold Coast Bus Lanes
$30M
Gold Coast Rapid - Broadbeach to
Parkwood
$280M
Rail - Comera to Helensvale
$430M
Rail - Kuraby to Kingston and
Loganlea
$230M
Eliminate Open Level Crossings
$400M
New passenger rail stock
$300M
Rail - Lawnton to Petrie third rail track
$200M
Rail - Beerburrum to Landsborough
$470M
Moreton Bay Rail Link (MBRL)
$253M
CBD Bus Infrastructure Capacity
Program
$25M
Eastern Busway - Main Ave to
Bennetts Rd
$300M
Table 15: Public Transport 5 Year Priority Program, 2017 - 2022
Capital
Expenditure
(EST)
$160M
Project Priorities
Capital
Expenditure
(EST)
New passenger rail stock
$500M
Gold Coast Rapid - to Helensvale
$850M
South East Busway to Springwood
$420M
Eastern Busway 2A
$25M
Freight Line Improvements
$575M
Rail - Spring eld to Redbank Plains
$200M
CBD Bus Infrastructure Capacity
Program
$1000M
Northern Busway - Sadlier St to
Rode Rd
$60M
Northern Busway - Chermside to
Aspley
$600M
Northern Bus Priority - Rode Rd to
Chermside
$50M
Rail - Varsity to Elanora
$1400M
Rail - Richlands to Spring eld
$280M
Sunshine Coast Light Rail (planning
and property)
$600M
Rail - Kepera to Ferny Grove
$29M
Rail - Acacia Ridge to Flagstone
$300M
Translink Station Upgrades
$161M
Eliminate Open Level Crossings
$500M
Bus Priority Toowoomba
$20M
Rail - Redbank to Ripley
$450M
Bus Priority
$350M
Park n’ Ride
$350M
Brisbane Metro (planning & property)
$200M
Public Transport 5 Year Priority Program = $7,498M
Public Transport 6 to 10 Year Priority Program = $7,520M
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 41
Is there a Role for the Private
Sector?
Financing the Plan
Is there a Role for the
Private Sector?
The current scal
environment prevents the
funding of “mega projects”
such as Cross River Rail –
there is simply no public
funding available for projects
of this scale. There is also no
appetite for a traditional PPP
for a project of this scale
where capital costs are high
and the patronage risk is
transferred to the private
sector, particularly public
transport projects.
In general, the private sector
appetite for demand risk is
very low, if not non-existent.
Public transport projects are
viewed by private investors
and equity as even less
attractive than toll roads –
and the recent Australian
track record in that regard is,
at best, patchy.
“Availability contract PPPs”
may offer a mechanism to
fund “value for money” major
public transport projects,
where contractors and
operators are paid on the
basis of the time the asset is
made available to the user (at
contractually agreed levels of
service quality and
operational performance).
42
The model is reasonably
common in social
infrastructure and emerging in
public transport across
several jurisdictions.
An Availability PPP is the
model being used to nance
and deliver the Gold Coast
Rapid Transit.
“Availability” contracts, or
hybrid schemes, generally
involve the builder and/or
operator taking some limited
patronage risk through a
performance regime (risk and
reward) covering:
• Availability (e.g. related to
vehicles/rolling stock
available to operate
services and limited
service cancellations) and
reliability (e.g. on time
running performance) of
services
• Vehicle and other facilities’
standards – can be very
broad in scope, e.g.
cleanliness, average eet
age, removal of graf ti,
on-board facilities such as
real time passenger
information etc,
• Customer service
standards – covering
aspects such as call
response times, on
platform/station staff,
internet and other media
facilities, ticketing systems
etc
• Revenue protection.
Adopting an Availability PPP
may also enable sourcing of
funds from a wider range of
sources – bonds,
superannuation funds etc –
particularly where incentives
are used and a long contract
life is adopted (20+ years).
It is critical for opportunities
with relatively modest returns
to offer value to investors,
and in the case of public
transport, this can be
achieved by adoption of
reasonably lengthy contract
terms and up front capital risk
sharing.
Furthermore, a key issue for
Government in adopting this
funding model for public
transport is recognising that it
can set the standards of the
service it seeks for
customers.
This will enshrine
performance in a wellconstructed ‘risk and reward’
regime that rewards delivery
above agreed standards and
applies penalties where
performance drops below
agreed standards.
The incorporation of an
effective incentive regime can
bring signi cant bene ts to
public transport users and
the State budget.
Speci cally, the bene ts are
in terms of service levels,
reduced costs to the State
per passenger trip or
kilometre travelled and
improved market share to
public transport with
improved asset utilisation.
The availability model offers
the State a real opportunity
to extract maximum value in
public transport infrastructure
and service provision in SEQ.
How can Local Government
make a contribution?
How can Local
Government make a
Contribution?
Making a contribution to the
provision of public transport
infrastructure and services ts
well with Local Government.
Local Government is well
placed to de ne and work
with major providers and the
State in developing
appropriate services that
deliver effectively locally and
integrate well across
jurisdictions.
The legislative frameworks
are in place to enable Local
Government to accumulate
funds which can be
hypothecated to nominated
public transport infrastructure
and services. Such projects
would need to be subject to
needs assessment, rigorous
cost bene t analysis and be
clearly articulated in local and
regional plans to ensure
appropriate use of monies.
A local government levy for
public transport could aid in
funding needed infrastructure
and/or services in a timelier
manner than would otherwise
be the case. Gold Coast City
Council and Sunshine Coast
Regional Council already
have such levies in place,
while Brisbane City Council
makes a substantial
contribution to public
transport out of its rates
revenue each year.
As well as the levies already
in place, the Gold Coast City
Council is also making capital
contribution towards the Gold
Coast Rapid Transit, and the
Moreton Bay Regional
Council is making a capital
contribution of $105M toward
the Moreton Bay Rail Line.
Having a stake-in-the-game
will encourage local
government to take a more
active role in community
promotion and in seeking
ways to reduce car
dependency across SEQ.
A levy on rateable properties
may offer a mechanism for
local government to take a
more active role in public
transport provision in a range
of ways; from policy
development, improved
advocacy capacity,
development of
demonstration/pilot projects,
‘seed funding’ for projects or
straight investment in
operations or infrastructure.
Clear rules would need to be
put in place setting out the
purposes for which any
public transport levy could be
used. Another key
consideration would be
whether any such levy should
be applied on a regional basis
across all local government
jurisdictions in SEQ or on a
selective, localised basis.
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 43
44
Introducing Competitive Tension into
the System
There is a growing
recognition around the world
that the provision and
operation of transport
services which are separable
from transport infrastructure
can deliver better outcomes
for commuters in situations
where competitive pressures
are limited, and where
supported by an appropriate
regulatory framework.
Like Melbourne, many cities
around the world from Dublin
to Jakarta, from Jerusalem to
Lagos, from London to the
Gold Coast, from Mumbai to
St Petersburg have
embarked on ventures in
urban public transport
involving private sector
participation in a variant of
the Public Private Partnership
(PPP) model.
Reasons for bringing private
operations to what have
been traditional government
owned and operated services
include:
• Contradictions in a
Government trying to be
policy maker, regulator
and operator at the same
time
• Confusion (and often
ineffectiveness) in trying to
act commercially while
pursuing laudable social
goals
• Restrictions on
management freedom
caused by public service
norms and procedures
(e.g. staf ng levels and
pay scales determined
across sectors rather than
by business needs)
• Constraints on nancial
autonomy and investment
due to government
budgeting processes
• Competition for resources
from the core government
functions of health,
education, welfare etc
• Reducing the overall size
of subsidies for passenger
journeys (or at least
subsidy per passenger
journeys in a growing
market - size and/or
share) to reduce crowding
out of both public
transport investment and
investment in other
sectors.
Private businesses operating
in competitive markets have
more focussed aims and
incentives. From an ef ciency
perspective, gains of
introducing market tension
are now well understood in
public transport.
International experience
suggests that technical
ef ciency (producing outputs
at least cost) is more likely to
be achieved by a private
management responsible and
accountable for achieving
stable and measurable
commercial objectives.
Futhermore, allocative
ef ciency (producing outputs
most closely meeting market
demands) is more likely
achieved in a competitive
market where consumers are
free to express their
demands through market
choice and where prices
re ect production costs.
In order for the best
outcomes to emerge from a
competitive public transport
provider market, a number of
elements need to be put in
place as noted previously,
including:
• A base level of demand
commensurate with the
operations and
investments envisaged
• Carefully structured
payments regime –
containing both penalties
for poor performance and
rewards to exceeding
agreed standards/
benchmarks
• Contracts of suf cient
duration to enable the
private sector to extract
maximum value from
investments due to better
certainty vis-à-vis
longevity and contracts
that are more re ective of
the nature of services and
assets involved.
SEQ should follow the lead of
international cities in urban
transport
Photo: Paul Harris
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 45
Value and innovation
are available to the public transport users of SEQ
46
Greater frequency, seamless
interchanges, value for
money and a focus on the
customer
This report introduces some
new thinking to the public
transport delivery debate in
South East Queensland.
“The Cleveland Solution”
accomodates the immediate
needs and frees up rail
capacity and scarce funds for
other needed projects.
The initiatives in this report
deliver on:
• frequency
• operational exibility
• asset utilisation
• capital and operational
costs.
Furthermore, the report
shows how “opening up” the
market to the private sector
can build on the bene ts of
prioritised projects.
The plan set out in this report
is one which clearly puts the
public transport user at the
heart of the system.
Public Transport in SEQ | Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queendland public transport infrastructure | January 20112 | 47
GHD Pty Ltd
201 Charlotte Street
Brisbane
Australia
www.ghd.com
Council of Mayors (SEQ)
239 George Street
Brisbane
Australia
www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au
© GHD Pty Ltd 2012
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was
commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form
whatsoever is prohibited.
Maps:
© 2012. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD and NAVMap make no representations or warranties about its
accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind
(whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage)
which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any
reason. Data Sources: GoogleEarth Pro - Imagery (Extracted Dec 1/11); NAVMap - Streets (2010); GHD - Metro, Stations (2011).